Download Improvement of the model concept for volatilisation of pesticides

Improvement of the model concept for volatilisation of
pesticides from soils and plant surfaces in PEARL
Description and user’s guide for PEARL 2.1.1-C1
F. van den Berg
M. Leistra
Version 1.1
23 September 2004
Contents
1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................3
2 Volatilisation ..............................................................................................................3
2.1 Description of current concept for volatilisation from bare soil............................3
2.2 Description of improved concept for volatilisation from bare soil ........................4
2.3 Description of improved concept for volatilisation from plants ............................6
3 Sorption to soil ..........................................................................................................9
4 Dissipation processes on the plant .........................................................................11
4.1 Volatilisation......................................................................................................11
4.2 Penetration of substance into plant tissue ........................................................12
4.3 Wash-off ...........................................................................................................12
4.4 Transformation..................................................................................................13
4.5 Mass conservation equation on the plant surface.............................................14
5 Getting started running the new PEARL model ......................................................15
References.................................................................................................................18
Appendix 1: PARAMETERISATION OF PEARL........................................................19
Appendix 2: Example PEARL input file using option OptSys is ‘PlantOnly’ ..............27
2
1 Introduction
After spraying pesticide onto the soil surface, various processes influence the
subsequent fate of the pesticide. Depending on the physico-chemical properties of
the pesticide and the soil and weather conditions, the relative contribution of
processes such as leaching, transformation and volatilisation to the overall fate will
differ. For an accurate description of the fate of the pesticide in the soil model
concepts are needed that adequately describe the different processes involved. So
far, the description of the volatilisation process has been rather simple and especially
for soil surface applied pesticides reliable estimates on the course with time of the
rate of emission into the air could not be made.
The description of the volatilisation process from soil and plant surfaces was
improved. Further, a concept was developed to describe the effect of the soil
moisture content on the coefficient for the sorption of pesticide to soil particles. These
improvements were implemented in PEARL 1.5.8-F2 (the model version included in
FOCUS-PEARL 2.2.2). The resulting PEARL version is 2.1.1-C1. The character ‘C’
stands for ‘Consensus’, which means that this version of PEARL has been approved
by both Alterra and RIVM.
In Chapters 2, 3 and 4 first the model concepts used in FOCUS-PEARL 1.1.1 and
FOCUS-PEARL 2.2.2 is described and this is followed by a description of the
improved concept as included in the new PEARL version. Chapter 2 gives a
description of the model concepts for volatilisation from soil and plant surfaces,
Chapter 3 gives a description of the moisture dependency of the sorption coefficient
and in Chapter 4 the model concepts for the dissipation processes on the plant
surface is presented. In Chapter 5 instructions are given how to execute runs with the
new PEARL version and information is given on the modifications in the PEARL input
and meteorological files.
2 Volatilisation
2.1 Description of current concept for volatilisation from bare soil
The volatilisation of the pesticide at the soil surface is described assuming a
boundary air layer through which the pesticide has to diffuse before it can escape
into the atmosphere. This concept has been adopted in FOCUS_PEARL versions
1.1.1 and 2.2.2 (Leistra et al., 2000; Tiktak et al., 2000). The transport resistance of
this air boundary layer can be described as:
rb =
d
Da (T )
with:
rb
d
Da (T)
[2.1-1]
= resistance for transport through boundary air layer (d m-1)
= thickness of boundary air layer (m)
= coefficient for diffusion in air (m2 d-1) at temperature T
3
The volatilisation flux density depends on the concentration gradient of the pesticide
across the boundary air layer and this flux density is described as:
J v, a =
(c g , ss − cair )
rb
with:
Jv,a
cg,ss
cair
[2.1-2]
= volatilisation flux density through the boundary air layer (kg m-2 d-1)
= concentration in the gas phase at the soil surface (kg m-3)
= concentration in the air (kg m-3)
It is assumed that the concentration of the pesticide in the air is negligible compared
to the concentration at the soil surface.
2.2 Description of improved concept for volatilisation from bare soil
The volatilisation flux density depends on physico-chemical properties of the
substance but also on moisture and meteorological conditions at the site of
application. The effect of the environmental factors can be taken into account with
the concept of a resistance to transport of substance from the surface into the
atmosphere (Wang et al., 1997; Asman, 1998). Using this concept, the flux density of
volatilisation is given by:
J v, a =
(cg , ss − cair )
in which:
ra
rb
ra + rb
[2.2-1]
= aerodynamic resistance (d m-1)
= boundary layer resistance (d m-1)
The aerodynamic resistance is the resistance to transport between the roughness
length for momentum z0m and the height of the internal boundary layer, zbl, into which
the pesticide has mixed. This height depends on the length of the sprayed field, the
roughness length and the stability conditions of the atmosphere (see Van der Molen
et al., 1990). Hence, the aerodynamic resistance is given by:
z 
z 
z 
ln bl  − ψ h  bl  + ψ h  0 m 
z
 L
 L 
ra =  0 m 
κu*
in which:
zbl
= height of internal boundary layer (m)
z0m
= roughness length for momentum (m)
Ψh
= stability correction for heat and substance (dimensionless)
L
= Obukhov length (m)
κ
= Karman constant (dimensionless)
4
[2.2-2]
= friction velocity (m d-1)
u*
Under neutral conditions, Eq [2.2-2] simplifies to:
z
ln bl
z
ra =  0 m
κu*



[2.2-3]
The height of the internal boundary layer zbl, at which the concentration in air is equal
to the background concentration, can be calculated iteratively using the equation
derived by Van der Molen et al. (1990). Under neutral conditions, zbl, is given by:
 z 
z bl ln( bl ) = κ 2 ⋅ X F
 z 0m 
[2.2-4]
in which:
= length of the treated field (m)
XF
In the new PEARL version, neutral conditions are assumed and the aerodynamic
resistance is calculated using Eqs [2.2-3] and [2.2-4]
The resistance to the transport between the source height (i.e. the soil surface) and
z=z0m can be described with the boundary resistance rb. Different parameterisations
have been given for this resistance. Wang et al. (1997) have described rb by:
1/ 4
rb =
Re∗ ⋅ Sc1 / 2
α ⋅ u∗
in which:
Re*
Sc
α
u*
[2.2-5]
= roughness Reynolds number
= Schmidt number
= constant (-)
= friction velocity (m d-1)
The constant α is taken to be 0.137.
The roughness Reynolds number Re* (dimensionless) is given by:
Re∗ =
u∗ ⋅ z0 m
υ
[2.2-6]
in which:
υ = kinematic viscosity of air (m2 d-1)
The Schmidt number is given by:
Sc =
υ
Dg
[2.2-7]
where:
5
Dg
= diffusion coefficient of pesticide in air (m2 d-1)
At sea level, the value of υ is 1.46 ·10-5 m2 s-1; the temperature dependency of ν and
Dg is about the same, so the quotient of the two variables is about constant, i.e. 0.71.
An alternative description of the surface boundary layer resistance rb is given by
Hicks et al. (1987):
2  Sc 
rb =
 
κ ⋅ u∗  Pr 
2/3
[2.2-8]
This description has also been used by Asman (1998) to describe the ammonia
fluxes to the atmosphere. The Prandtl number can be set at 0.72. In combination with
a value of 0.4 for the Karman constant, Equation 2.2-8 can be simplified to:
6.22 ⋅ Sc
rb =
u∗
2/3
[2.2-9]
2.3 Description of improved concept for volatilisation from plants
The volatilisation of pesticides from plant surfaces can also be described using the
concept of transport resistances. Firstly, the source has to be described because this
determines the resistances for the transport between the source height (or source
layer) and the atmosphere. During spraying of arable crops, spray droplets move
downwards from the nozzles towards the plant surfaces. Part of the droplets will
deposit on the top leaves, whereas others penetrate more deeply into the canopy.
Model concepts for the volatilisation may be developed on the basis of a canopy
layer with a distribution of pesticide deposits or on the basis of an apparent source
height at some level between the soil surface and the crop height.
For a description of the transport resistances within and above a plant canopy, the
displacement height has to be taken into account. The displacement height is defined
as the height of the plane for absorption of momentum.
The displacement height d for the crop is given by (Van Dam et al., 1997):
d=
2
hc
3
[2.3-1]
in which:
d
= displacement height (m)
hc
= height of the crop (m)
For a crop, the roughness length for momentum z0m is given by:
z0 m = a ⋅ (hc − d )
in which:
z0m
= roughness length for momentum (m)
6
[2.3-2]
a
= coefficient (dimensionless)
Substitution of Equation 2.3-1 in 2.3-2 gives:
z0 m = a'⋅hc
[2.3-3]
in which:
a´
= coefficient (dimensionless)
Van Dam et al. (1997) have proposed a value for the coefficient a´ of 0.123 (-).
For the description of the volatilisation flux, the aerodynamic transport resistance ra
for the substance is the resistance for transport from d+z0m and the height of the
internal boundary layer zbl (See chapter 3).
The aerodynamic resistance for the transport from z= d+z0m to z=zbl is given by:
z −d
z −d
z 
 − ψ h  bl
ln bl
 + ψ h  0m 
z
 L 
 L 
ra =  0 m 
κu*
[2.3-4]
in which:
= aerodynamic resistance (s m-1)
ra
zbl
= height of the internal boundary layer (m)
Ψh
= stability correction for heat and substance (dimensionless)
L
= Obukhov length (m)
κ
= Karman constant (dimensionless)
u*
= friction velocity (m s-1)
Under neutral conditions, Eq. [2.3-4] simplifies to:
z −d

ln bl
z0 m 

ra =
κu*
[2.3-5]
The boundary resistance, rb, to transport between the source height and z= d+z0m
can be described by Eq. 2.2-7 or 2.2-8.
The concentration of the pesticide in the gas phase at the plant surface depends on
its vapour pressure at the prevailing temperature. Assuming perfect gas behaviour,
the maximum concentration in the air at the plant surface is given by:
cg , ps =
M ⋅ ps
R ⋅T
[2.3-6]
where:
cg,ps
= concentration in the air at the plant surface (kg m-3)
M
= molecular mass (kg mol-1)
ps
= saturated vapour pressure of the pesticide (Pa)
7
R
T
= universal gas constant (J K-1 mol-1)
= temperature (K)
The flux density of volatilisation from plant surfaces can be described by:
J v ,a =
(c g , ps − c air )
in which:
ra
rb
8
ra + rb
= aerodynamic resistance (d m-1)
= boundary layer resistance (d m-1)
[2.3-7]
3 Sorption to soil
In FOCUS-PEARL 1.1.1 and FOCUS-PEARL 2.2.2, the sorption coefficient is
assumed to be constant. However, an increase in this coefficient at low moisture
contents in soil has been measured. This increase in sorption to soil particles is
expected to result in lower volatilisation flux densities at the soil surface. A simple
approach to take this effect into account is to specify a maximum sorption coefficient
for air-dry soil and a moisture content below which the sorption coefficient increases.
The increase in the sorption coefficient can be described using a linear or an
exponential relation.
Assuming an exponential relationship the effect of the moisture content on the
sorption coefficient can be described as follows:
K d , eff = K d , max ⋅ e −α ⋅ w
for w < wlow
[3-1a]
for w ≥ wlow
[3-1b]
and
K d , eff = K d
in which:
Kd,eff
Kd,max
α
w
wlow
= Effective sorption coefficient (L kg-1)
= Maximum sorption coefficient (L kg-1)
= coefficient (-)
= moisture content (kg kg-1)
= moisture content below which sorption coefficient increases (kg kg-1)
The coefficient α can be calculated by substituting wlow for w and Kd for Kd,eff in Eq 31a. This gives:
α=
K

1
⋅ ln d , max 
wlow
 Kd 
[3-2]
Substituting Eq 3.2 in Eq 3.1a results in:
K d , eff = K d , max ⋅ e
−
w
Kd , max
⋅ ln
wlow
Kd
[3-3]
The value of wlow is set equal to the water content at pF4.2 (wilting point). At pF
values greater than 4.2, the relative humidity of the air in the soil pores is no longer
100%. So, in the new PEARL version the only new parameter needed to describe
this effect is Kd,max.
An example for both the linear and the exponential relation is given in Figures 1 and
2. Note that the data for Figures 1 and 2 are the same. The only difference is that in
Fig 1 sorption data are presented on a linear scale and in Fig 2 on a logarithmic
scale.
9
Figure 1: The sorption coefficient as a function of the moisture content. Increase in
sorption coefficient taken to be linear or exponential.
Figure 2: The sorption coefficient as a function of the moisture content. Increase in
sorption coefficient taken to be linear or exponential. Logarithmic Y-axis.
10
4 Dissipation processes on the plant
After application to the plant, the fate of the compound is influenced by different
processes, such as volatilisation, penetration into the plant tissue, transformation and
wash-off. In FOCUS-PEARL versions 1.1.1 and 2.2.2, an overall half-life could be
specified or values had to be specified for the half-life for each of these processes.
Using this concept the effect of environmental factors, such as solar radiation or air
temperature could not be taken into account. Therefore, model concepts for each of
these processes were developed.
4.1 Volatilisation
The saturated vapour concentration of the pesticide in the air at the deposit surface
on the leaves is calculated from the vapour pressure by using the Gas Law as
described in Eq. 2.3-6.
The potential rate of volatilisation of pesticide from the deposit/leaf surface is
calculated by (similar to Eq 2.1-2):
J v , pot =
with:
Jv,pot
cair
r
(c
g , ps
− cair )
r
[4.1-1]
= potential flux of volatilisation from the surface, kg m–2 d-1
= concentration in the turbulent air just outside the laminar air layer
= (kg m-3 ;set at zero)
= resistance to transport from plant surface to atmosphere (d m-1)
All the areic quantities, such as fluxes, are expressed per m2 field surface (not plant
surface).
The actual rate of pesticide volatilisation is described by taking into account the mass
of pesticide on the plants:
J v , act = f mas J v , pot
with:
Jv,act
fmas
[4.1-2]
= actual rate of pesticide volatilization (kg m-2 d-1)
= factor for the effect of pesticide mass on the plants (-)
The pesticide is assumed to be deposited on the leaves in spots of variable
thickness. The thinner the deposit at a certain place, the sooner that place will be
depleted by volatilisation. The concept is that the volatilising surface decreases in
proportion to the decrease in mass of pesticide in the deposit. So:
f mas =
Ap
A p ,ref
[4.1-3]
with:
11
Ap
Ap,ref
= areic mass of pesticide on the plants (kg m-2)
= reference areic mass of pesticide on the plants, 1.0 10–4 kg m-2
(= 1 kg ha-1).
4.2 Penetration of substance into plant tissue
Pesticide penetration into the leaves is influenced by many factors, but no
quantitative relationships are known. Therefore, the description of the process in the
plant module can be kept simple. The rate of pesticide penetration into the leaves is
calculated by:
R pen = k pen A p
with:
Rpen
kpen
[4.2-1]
= rate of pesticide penetration into the leaves (kg m-2 d-1)
= rate coefficient of penetration (d-1)
The coefficient kpen is one of the quantities to be calibrated in the computation on the
basis of the measurements or it is derived from other studies on pesticide and
formulation.
Direct measurements on the rate of penetration of pesticides into plants are usually
not available. Quantitative predictions on such penetration on the basis of process
theory do not seem to be available. A major problem is that, besides the physicochemical properties of the pesticide, the substances in the formulation may have a
great effect on penetration. An attempt could be made to classify (formulated)
pesticides into e.g. five classes with respect to their propensity to penetrate into the
plants. A representative rate coefficient could be assigned to each of the classes, as
a first approximation of the rate of penetration.
The following five main classes of penetration rate are distinguished:
1) very fast penetration: half-life = 0.04 d (1 h; kpen = 17 d–1);
2) fast penetration: half-life = 0.21 d (5 h; kpen = 3.3 d–1);
3) moderate penetration rate: half-life = 1.0 d (kpen = 0.69 d–1);
4) slow penetration: half-life = 5.0 d (kpen = 0.14 d–1);
5) very slow penetration: half-life = 25 days (kpen = 0.03 d–1).
If the above classification is too rough, one of the boundaries between the classes
could be selected: half-life = 0.13 d (3 h; kpen = 5.5 d–1), half-life = 0.63 d (15 h; kpen =
1.1 d–1), half-life = 3.0 d (kpen = 0.23 d–1), half-life = 15 d (kpen = 0.05 d–1).
In this way the available empirical knowledge on penetration is translated into a rate
coefficient. The classification allows for penetration into the plants to be included in
the computations, as a process competing with volatilisation.
4.3 Wash-off
The rate of pesticide wash-off from the leaves by (simulated) rainfall is set dependent
on rainfall intensity and a wash-off coefficient:
R w = k w Wr A p
12
[4.3-1]
with:
Rw
kw
Wr
= rate of pesticide wash-off from the leaves (kg m-2 d-1)
= coefficient for pesticide wash-off (mm-1)
= rainfall intensity (mm d-1)
Various factors are known to affect pesticide wash-off with rainfall from plants.
However, no relationships are available for a mechanistic and quantitative description
of this process. Only a rough classification of wash-off based on the experimental
results seems to be possible at present. It is proposed to classify wash-off in a
certain situation in one of the following five classes:
kw = 0.09 mm–1 (e.g. 90% wash-off with 10 mm rainfall);
kw = 0.07 mm–1 (70% with 10 mm);
kw = 0.05 mm–1 (50% with 10 mm);
kw = 0.03 mm–1 (30% with 10 mm);
kw = 0.01 mm-1 (10% with 10 mm).
If this classification is too rough, a value at the boundary of two classes can be
selected. In this classification it is assumed that the crop is only sprayed if no rain is
expected in the first period of e.g. 6 hours. It should be noted that in some
experiments rainfall was simulated to occur very soon after spraying, which may
result in very high wash-off.
4.4 Transformation
The rate of pesticide transformation on the plant surface by solar irradiation is
described by first-order kinetics:
R ph = k ph A p
with:
Rph
kph
[4.4-1]
= rate of phototransformation on the leaves (kg m-2 d-1)
= rate coefficient of phototransformation (d-1)
The rate coefficient kph is set dependent on the intensity of solar irradiation:
I
k ph =  act
I
 ref
with:
Iact
Iref
kph,ref

 k ph ,ref


[4.4-2]
= actual solar irradiation intensity (W m-2)
= reference solar irradiation intensity (500 W m-2)
= rate coefficient of phototransformation at reference irradiation
intensity (d-1)
The coefficient kph,ref is one of the quantities to be calibrated in the computation on
the basis of the measurements or it has to be derived from other studies on the
pesticide. Usually, direct measurements on the phototransformation of a pesticide on
plant surfaces are not available. Types of information that may be available are:
13
- photolysis in water, purified or natural;
- phototransformation on artificial surfaces;
- phototransformation on soil or other natural surfaces;
- phototransformation in air.
These types of measurements give an indication whether phototransformation on
plant surfaces may occur. However, translation of rates between such media does
not seem to be possible yet.
The rate of phototransformation on plant surfaces may show a wide variation.
Possible factors are: a) the substances in the formulated product; b) the substances
at the plant surface, c) the substances in the local air, etc.
An attempt could be made to classify a pesticide in one of five classes of vulnerability
to phototransformation on plant surfaces, on the basis of available research data.
The following representative values of the rate coefficient kph,ref are assigned to each
of these classes:
1) very fast phototransformation: half-life = 0.04 d (1 h; kph,ref = 17 d–1);
2) fast phototransformation: half-life = 0.21 d (5 h; kph,ref = 3.3 d–1);
3) moderate rate of phototransformation: half-life = 1.0 d (kph,ref = 0.69 d–1);
4) slow phototransformation: half-life = 5.0 d (kph,ref = 0.14 d–1);
5) very slow phototransformation: half-life = 25 days (kph,ref = 0.03 d–1).
If the above classification is too rough, one of the boundaries between the classes
could be selected: half-life = 0.13 d (3 h; kph,ref = 5.5 d–1), half-life = 0.63 d (15 h; kph,ref
= 1.1 d–1), half-life = 3.0 d (kph,ref = 0.23 d–1), half-life = 15 d (kph,ref = 0.05 d–1).
If the rate of phototransformation at plant surfaces is critical in the environmental
evaluation, special measurements should be made.
4.5 Mass conservation equation on the plant surface
The equation for the conservation of mass of pesticide on the plant surface reads:
dA p
dt
with:
t
= − J vol ,act − R pen − Rw − R ph
[4.4-2]
= time (d)
All areic quantities in this equation are expressed on the basis of m2 field surface.
The definition of the two deposit classes of a) well-exposed deposit and b) poorly
exposed deposit requires the use of two mass conservation equations, one for each
of these classes.
14
5 Getting started running the new PEARL model
As the new PEARL version requires new input records, the GUI of FOCUS-PEARL
2.2.2 cannot be used to prepare input files. However, an input file made by the GUI
of PEARL 2.2.2 can be taken as a starting point for the preparation of an input file
that contains the correct records required by the new PEARL version. In the following
section the changes in the input file are described.
The PEARL input file contains the following sections:
1. Control
2. Soil
3. Weather and irrigation
4. Lower boundary flux and drainage/infiltration
5. Compound
6. Management
7. Crop section Crop calendar and crop properties
8. Output
In the Control section, the following records are added or modified:
CallingProgram
Because the new version is not a FOCUS version, the record ‘CallingProgram’
should be set at ‘Consensus’.
ModelVersion
The version number of the new PEARL consensus version is 1.
OptSys
If this option is set at ‘PlantOnly’ then no input records are needed to describe the
soil and the lower boundary and drainage conditions. In this case, only the processes
on the plant are simulated. If this option is set at ‘All’ then the soil as well as the plant
system is simulated and no records can be left out.
OptOutSWAP
This option gives the possibility to run SWAP on an hourly or daily basis. The options
are: ‘Daily’ and ‘Hourly’.
OptDelTimPrn
A new possible option has been added: ‘Hour’, If set at ‘Hour’, then hourly output is
generated. If this option is used then OptOutSWAP should be set at ‘Hourly’
In the Weather and Irrigation section, the following records are added or modified:
OptMetInp
This option gives the possibility to read hourly or daily meteorological data. If OptOut
SWAP is set at ‘Hourly’, then OptMetInp should also be set at ‘Hourly’
OptResBou
This option is used to select either the parameterisation by Hicks et al. (1987) to
calculate the boundary resistance or that by Wang et al. (1997).
ZmeaWnd
The height of the measurements of the wind speed
15
ZmeaTem
The height of the measurements of the air temperature
LenRghMmtLcl
The roughness length of the soil or plant surface
LenFld
The length of the field (upwind fetch)
In the Compound section, the following records are added or modified:
KomEqlMax
The maximum value for the sorption coefficient, i.e. under very dry soil conditions
OptTraRes
This option gives the possibility to select either the concept of a laminar air boundary
layer to calculate the volatilisation flux density (Eq. 2.1-1) or the concept of a
combination of a boundary and aerodynamic resistances to calculate this flux (Eq
2.2-3, 2.2-5 (Wang et al.) or 2.2-3, 2.2-8(Hicks et al.)). Options are: ‘Laminar’ and
’Aerodynamic’. If set to ‘Laminar’ in combination with the option of hourly
meteorological data, then the thickness of the laminar air boundary layer depends on
the sign of the temperature gradient. If the temperature decreases with height than
the value for the thickness of the laminar layer is equal to that specified in the input
file; if the temperature increases with height then atmospheric conditions are
assumed to be stable and the value of the thickness of the laminar layer is set at 100
times the value specified in the input file.
RadGloRef
Reference global radiation for the factor for the effect of radiation on the pesticide on
the plant
FraDepRex
Fraction of applied mass to be put in deposit with reduced exposure. If set at 0 then
all mass applied is fully exposed.
FacTraDepRex
Factor for the effect of restricted exposure of deposit on transformation
FacVolDepRex
Factor for the effect of restricted exposure of deposit on volatilisation
FacPenDepRex
Factor for the effect of restricted exposure of deposit on penetration
FacWasDepRex
Factor for the effect of restricted exposure of deposit on wash-off
In the Output section, the following record is modified:
OptReport
A new possible option has been added: ‘Air’, If set at ‘Air’, then report on the
volatilisation is generated with a hourly volatilisation losses during the first 24 h after
application. The volatilisation fluxes that are required by the EVA model are also
generated.
A full list of records for the new PEARL version is given in Appendix 1. An example
PEARL input file is given in Appendix 2.
16
The format of the file with daily meteorological data is unchanged. If the hourly option
is used then the format of the meteorological file is the following
*
MSTAT
HH
DD
MM YY YY RAD TAIR TAIRLow HUM WIN RAI ETREF
*
kJ/m2 C
C
kPa m/s
mm
mm
********************************************************************************************************************
JUL-M
1
11
5
1995
0
8.25
8.25 1.082 2.945
3.0
0
A new column specifying the hour during the day is added. Further, air temperatures
at two heights can be specified. If only measurements for one height are available,
then these measured values can be copied to the column with the header ‘TAIRLow’.
Measurements of the temperature at two heights are needed to assess the
temperature gradient (stable or unstable/neutral).
To run the PEARL version create a .bat file with the following command:
[dir Pearl exe]pearlmodel example
After double clicking on the .bat file, pearlmodel exe will look for the input file
‘example.prl’ and if present in the same directory as the .bat file the run will start.
It should be noted that the pearlmodel exe can be put in any directory. The command
line in the .bat file should then specify the directory where the pearlmodel is located.
Further, the swap209 exe must be in the same directory as the pearlmodel exe.
17
References
Asman, W.A.H., 1998. Factors influencing local dry deposition of gases with special
reference to ammonia, Atmos. Environ. 32: 415-421.
Hicks, B.B., D.D. Baldocchi, T.P. Meyers, R.P. Hosker and D.R. Matt, 1987. A
preliminary multiple resistance routine for deriving dry deposition velocities from
measured quantities. Water Air and Soil Pollut. 36, 311-330.
Leistra, M., A.M.A. van der Linden, J.J.T.I.Boesten, A. Tiktak and F. van den Berg,
2000. PEARL model for pesticide behaviour and emissions in soil-plant systems.
Description of processes. Alterra report 13, RIVM report 711401009, Alterra,
Wageningen, 107 pp.
Tiktak, A., F. van den Berg, J.J.T.I. Boesten, M. Leistra, A.M.A. van der Linden and
D. van Kraalingen (2000). Pesticide Emission Assessment at Regional and Local
Scales: User Manual of Pearl version 1.1. RIVM Report 711401008, Alterra Report
28, RIVM, Bilthoven, 142 pp.
Van Dam, J.C., J. Huygen, J.G. Wesseling, R.A. Feddes, P. Kabat, P.E.V. Van
Walsum, P. Groenendijk and C.A. van Diepen, 1997. Theory of SWAP version 2.0.
Simulation of water flow, solute transport and plant growth in the Soil-WaterAtmosphere-Plant environment. Report 71, Department Water Resources,
Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 167 pp.
Van der Molen, J., A.C.M. Beljaars, W.J. Chardon, W.A. Jury and H.G. van Faassen,
1990. Ammonia volatilization from arable land after application of cattle slurry. 2.
Derivation of a transfer model. Netherlands J. Agric. Sci., 38, 239-254.
Wang, D., S.R. Yates and J. Gan, 1997. Temperature effect on methyl bromide
volatilization in soil fumigation, J. Environ. Qual., 26: 1072-1079.
18
Appendix 1: PARAMETERISATION OF PEARL
Author: Erik van den Berg
Date: 1 September 2004
Characteristics of the parameterisation: Example run
At run time the PEARL user interface produces two input files:
1. X.PRL containing all soil and substance input parameters with X as the run
identification
2. Y.MET containing meteorological input in which Y is the name of the
meteorological station.
If the irrigation option is used, there is a third input file:
3. Z.IRR containing irrigation input in which Z is the name of the irrigation scheme.
X.PRL
PARAMETER
Section 1: Control
CallingProgram
ModelVersion
OptSys
ScreenOutput
TimStart
TimEnd
AmaSysEnd
ThetaTol
OptDelTimPrn
DelTimPrn
OptScreen
RepeatHydrology
OptHyd
DelTimSwaMin
DelTimSwaMax
OptDelOutput
PrintCumulatives
GWLTol
MaxItSwa
OptHysteresis
PreHeaWetDryMin
DESCRIPTION
VALUE, SOURCE & COMMENTS
Release type
Version number of the model
Option for system to be
simulated
Set to Alterra
Set to 1
Set to ‘All’. Options are ‘All’ and ‘PlantOnly’. If
‘PlantOnly’ is selected then soil profile input data are not
required.
1
Output to screen
Yes
Starting time of simulation
1-Jan -2001
Start of simulation period
End time of simulation
31-Dec-2002
End of simulation period.
Stopcondition (kg.ha-1)
0
Maximum difference in water 0.001
content between iterations
Option to set output interval Set to ‘Hour’. Options are Hour, Day, Month, Decade, Year,
Other. For volatilisation studies select ‘Hour’
Print interval (d)
Only required if OptDelTimPrn is set to ‘Other’
Option to write output to
Set to Yes
screen
Repeat the same hydrology
No
each year
Hydrology simulation option Automatic
Minimum time step
1.E-8
Maximum time step
0.2
Option to delete detailed
No
output
Option to output cumulative Set to ‘Yes’. Options are: ‘Yes’ and ‘No’
data
Tolerance for groundwater
Set to 1 m
level
Maximum number of
Set to 10000.
iterations in SWAP
Option to include hysteresis
Set to No.
Minimum pressure head to
Set to 0.2. Treated as a dummy.
switch drying/wetting
Section 2: Soil
19
SoilTypeID
Location
table SoilProfile
table SoilProperties
table VanGenuchtenpar
OptRho
table horizon Rho
ZpndMax
OptSolEvp
FacEvpSol
CofRedEvp
PrcMinEvp
table horizon LenDisLiq
OptCofDifRel
ExpDifLiqMilNom
20
Name of soil type
Name of location
Table defining the soil
profile:
specify for each horizon the
thickness (m) and the number
of numerical soil
compartments
HAMB_SOIL
HAMBURG
0.3 12
0.3 12
0.3 6
0.1 2
1.5 15
Comment: the thickness of numerical layers is 2.5 cm in the
top 0.6 m, then 5 cm up to 1.0 m depth and 10 cm to 2.5 m
depth
Table specifying the soil
1 0.389 0.41
0.201 0.0172
8.4
composition for each horizon: 2 0.4
0.398 0.202 0.0113
7.9
horizon number
3 0.39
0.449 0.161 0.0063
7.8
fraction sand (kg/kg)
4
0.434 0.427 0.139 0.0045
8
fraction silt (kg/kg)
5
0.434 0.427 0.139 0.0045
8
fraction clay (kg/kg)
Source: file ITB.SCP
content organic matter
(kg/kg)
pH
1 0.599
0.06
0.06 0.06 1.5 0.3
-1
Table specifying the
0.01
0.06 0.06 1.2 0.03 -1
VanGenuchten parameters for 2 0.355
0.01
0.05 0.05 1.3 0.03 -1
each horizon using the format: 3 0.355
4 0.355
0.01
0.05 0.05 1.3 0.03 -1
horizon number
5 0.355
0.01
0.05 0.05 1.3 0.03 -1
ThetaSat (-)
ThetaRes (-)
AlphaDry (cm-1)
Source: Values obtained by fitting data as presented in
AlphaWet (cm-1)
ITB.HCU and ITB.WRC files.
n (-)
Ksat (m/d)
L (-)
Option for input of bulk
Input
density data
Nr Rho (kg/m3)
Table specifying the
1 1050
bulk density for each
2 1700
horizon:
3 1700
number
4 1700
bulk density (kg/m3)
5 1700
Source: Data taken from ITB.HCU
Maximum thickness of
0.0
ponding water layer (m)
Option to select evaporation
Set to ‘Boesten’.
reduction mPESTd
Coefficient for potential
1
evaporation from bare soil (-) Source: FOCUS (2000)
Coefficient for reduction of
0.63
evaporation from bare soil
Default value in PEARL
resulting from drying of top
layer (cm1/2)
Minimum rainfall to reset
Set to 1 cm d-1.
reduction
Dispersion length of solute in 0.05
liquid phase (m)
Default value in PEARL.
Option for tortuosity
MillingtonQuirk
Default in PEARL
Exponent in nominator of
2
relation of Millington &
Default value in PEARL
Quirk for diffusion in liquid
phase
ExpDifLiqMilDen
Exponent in denominator of
relation of Millington &
Quirk for diffusion in liquid
phase
Exponent in nominator of
relation of Millington &
Quirk for diffusion in gas
phase
Exponent in denominator of
relation of Millington &
Quirk for diffusion in gas
phase
0.6667
Default value in PEARL
Name of MeteoStation
Option to select the type of
data used by model
Option to select the time
resolution of meteo data
Latitude of the meteo station
HAMB-M
Input
Alt
Altitude of the meteo station
(m)
55.12
LenRghMmtLcl
LenFld
ZMeaWnd
ZMeaTem
OptResBou
TemLboSta
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
ExpDifGasMilNom
ExpDifGasMilDen
Section 3: Weather and
Irrigation
MeteoStation
OptEvp
OptMetInp
Lat
FacPrc
Correction
precipitation
DifTem
FacEvp
Correction for temperature
Correction factor for
evapotranspiration
Option to choose between a
scenario with and a scenario
without irrigation
Identification of irrigation
scheme
Name of file with irrigation
data
OptIrr
IrrigationScheme
IrrigationData
Section 4a: Lower
Boundary Flux
ZgrwLevSta
OptLbo
table GrwLev
0.6667
Default value in PEARL
Set to ‘Hourly’. Options are ‘Hourly’ and ‘Daily’
2.12
Set to ‘Hicks’. Options are ‘Hicks’ and ‘Wang’
7
Initial lower boundary soil
temperature [-20|40] (oC)
factor
2
Default value in PEARL
for Set to 1.0.
Set to 0.0.
Set to 1.0.
No
No
The filename consists of the name of the irrigation scheme
with the extension .irr.
Initial depth of groundwater
level (m)
Option for bottom boundary GrwLev
condition
Table containing daily values
of groundwater level for the
full experimental period
using the format:
date (e.g. 01-Jan)
groundwater level (m)
Section 4b: Drainage/
infiltration section
21
OptDra
OptSurDra
NumDraLev
Section 5: Substance
PEST
SubstanceName
table Compounds
table FraPrtDau
MolMas_PEST
Option to consider surface
drainage
Number of drainage levels
Name of substance
Default set to ‘No’
Default set to ‘No’
0
PEST
List of names of parent
PEST
compound and metabolites
Table containing fractions
empty
formed (on amount of
substance basis) for all parent
and metabolite combinations
Molar mass (g/mol) of PEST 200.0
OptCntLiqTraRef_PEST Option to use the moisture
content during the incubation
study of PEST
DT50Ref_PEST
Half-life for transformation
of PEST in topsoil at
reference temperature and a
matric suction of 100 hPa
TemRefTra_PEST
Temperature at which halflife of transformation of
PEST was measured (oC)
ExpLiqTra_PEST
Coefficient describing the
relation between the
transformation rate of PEST
and the volume fraction of
liquid (-)
CntLiqTraRef_PEST
Reference content of liquid in
transformation study from
which DT50Ref of PEST was
derived (kg/kg)
MolEntTra_PEST
Molar activation enthalpy of
transformation of PEST
(kJ/mol)
table horizon FacZTra
Factor for influence of depth
Hor PEST
on transformation rate in soil
as a function of soil horizon
[0|1] using the format:
number of horizon
Factor (-)
OptimumConditions
comment: this implies that DT50Ref has to be specified at
matric suction of 100 hPa
8.2
OptCofFre
Set to pH-independent, so the Freundlich sorption equation is
used. The sorption coefficient is calculated by multiplying the
coefficient of sorption on organic matter and the organic
matter content
1
ConLiqRef_PEST
ExpFre_PEST
KomEql_ PEST
KomEqlMax_ PEST
22
Option to choose between
pH-dependent, pHindependent or user-defined
sorption
Reference liquid concentration
for sorption coefficient of
PEST (mg/L)
Freundlich exponent of PEST
Coefficient of equilibrium
sorption of substance on
organic matter (Kom).
Coefficient of equilibrium
sorption of substance on
organic matter (Kom) under
25
0.7
Default value recommended by FOCUS.
Set to 1. Not relevant in this run
54.
Default value recommended by FOCUS.
1
2
3
4
5
1
0.5
0.11
0
0
0.9. Default value in PEARL
Set at 45 L/kg. Measured at temperature TemRefSor
Set at 4500 L/kg. Measured at temperature TemRefSor
MolEntSor_ PEST
TemRefSor_ PEST
KSorEql_PEST
table horizon FacZSor
Hor PEST
dry conditions.
Molar enthalpy of sorption
Temperature of reference at
which the sorption coefficient
was measured
Equilibrium sorption
coefficient for soil of PEST
(L/kg)
Factor for influence of depth
on sorption in soil as a
function of soil horizon [0|1]
using the format:
number of horizon
Factor (-)
Describing the relation between the sorption coefficient of
the substance and temperature.
Default value defined by FOCUS workgroup 0 kJ/mol.
In degrees Celsius.
Only needed if OptCofFre set to ‘user-defined’
1
2
3
4
5
1
0.66
0.37
0.26
0.26
PreVapRef_PEST
Saturated vapour pressure of
PEST (Pa)
4.0E-3
TemRefVap_PEST
Temperature of reference at
which the saturated vapour
pressure of PEST was
measured (Celsius)
Water solubility of PEST
(mg/L)
Temperature of reference at
which the water solubility of
PEST was measured (oC)
Molar enthalpy of the
dissolution of PEST (kJ/mol)
Molar enthalpy of the
vaporization process of PEST
(kJ/mol)
Desorption rate coefficient of
PEST (d-1)
Factor relating coefficients for
equilibrium and nonequilibrium sorption of PEST
(-)
Coefficient for uptake by
plant roots of PEST (-)
Option for the description of
the volatilisation
Thickness of stagnant air
layer at soil surface (m)
Option for the description of
the loss routes of parent
compound from the crop
surface
Half-life for dissipation of the
parent compound at the crop
surface (d)
Factor for the wash-off of
parent compound from the
crop by rainfall or irrigation
(m-1)
Reference global radiation for
the factor for the effect of
25
SlbWatRef_PEST
TemRefSlb_PEST
MolEntSlb_PEST
MolEntVap_PEST
CofDesRat_PEST
FacSorNeqEql_PEST
FacUpt_PEST
OptTraRes
ThiAirBouLay
OptDspCrp
DT50DspCrp
FacWasCrp
RadGloRef
90
25
27
Default value in PEARL
95
Default value in PEARL
0
0.0
Not relevant because CofDesRat was set to zero.
0.5
Default value in PEARL
Options are: ‘Laminar’ and ’Aerodynamic’.
0.01
Default value in PEARL
Options are: ‘Lumped’, ‘Specified’, ‘Calculated’
If ‘Calculated’ is selected then wash-off, volatilisation,
penetration and transformation are simulated.
1000000
0.0001
Default value in PEARL.
Not relevant because substance is applied to soil.
Default value 500 W/m2.
23
FacTraDepRex
FacVolDepRex
FacPenDepRex
FacWasDepRex
FraDepRex
TemRefDif_PEST
CofDifWatRef_PEST
CofDifAirRef_PEST
Section 6: Management
ApplicationScheme
Zfoc
DelTimEvt
table Applications
table TillageDates
table interpolate
CntSysEql
table interpolate
CntSysNeq
DepositionScheme
table FlmDep
24
radiation on the pesticide on
the plant (W.m-2)
Factor for the effect of
restricted exposure of deposit
on transformation (-)
Factor for the effect of
restricted exposure of deposit
on volatilisation (-)
Factor for the effect of
restricted exposure of deposit
on penetration (-)
Factor for the effect of
restricted exposure of deposit
on wash-off (-)
Fraction of applied mass to
be put in deposit with rediced
exposure (-)
Temperature of reference at
which diffusion coefficients
were measured (C)
Coefficient of diffusion of
PEST in water (m2/d)
Coefficient of diffusion of
PEST in air (m2/d)
Name of application scheme
FOCUS target depth (m)
Time difference in years
between subsequent
applications
Table defining the
applications using the format:
date
type
application rate (kg/ha)
data and depth of tillage
event using the format:
data (e.g. 01-Jan-1999)
depth (m)
Table defining the initial
content of parent compound
in the equilibrium domain of
the soil using the format:
depth (m)
content (mg/kg)
Table defining the initial
content of parent compound
in the equilibrium domain of
the soil using the format:
depth (m)
content (mg/kg)
Option for including
deposition
Table defining the flux of
deposition using the format:
date
daily deposition rate (kg ha-1
d-1)
Range: 0.0 to 1.0. If set to 1.0 then no effect of reduced
exposure
Range: 0.0 to 1.0. If set to 1.0 then no effect of reduced
exposure
Range: 0.0 to 1.0. If set to 1.0 then no effect of reduced
exposure
Range: 0.0 to 1.0. If set to 1.0 then no effect of reduced
exposure
20
0.43E-4
Default value in PEARL.
0.43
Default value in PEARL
App_PEST
1
NoRepeat
Implies that the application is not repeated each year
01-May-2001-1100 AppCrpLAI 0.691
The hour of application can be specified (then format is ddmmm-yyyy-hhmm)
Empty
Empty
empty
No
empty
Section 7: Crop
RepeatCrops
Option to repeat growth of
same crop each year
OptLenCrp
Option to make the length of
the crop cycle dependent on
temperature sum
table Crops
Table that specifies the crops
and their emergence and
harvest dates using the format:
emergence date
harvest date
crop code
table CrpPar_crop1
Table that specifies crop
parameters of crop1 as a
function of development
stage using the format:
- development stage (-) which
is 0 at emergence and 1 at
harvest
- Leaf Area Index (-)
- crop factor (-) for
description of potential
evapotranspiration
- rooting depth (m)
- crop height (m)
table RootDensity_ crop1 Table that specifies the root
density distribution over the
rooting depth using the
format:
- relative rooting depth (i.e.
depth divided by rooting
depth)
- relative root density
HLim1_ crop1
pressure head above which
there is no water extraction
(cm)
HLim2_ crop1
pressure head below which
optimal water extraction
starts (cm)
HLim3U_crop1
pressure head below which
reduction starts when
potential transpiration is high
(cm)
HLim3L_crop1
pressure head below which
reduction starts when
potential transpiration is low
(cm)
HLim4_crop1
pressure head below which
there is no water extraction
(cm)
RstEvpCrp_crop1
Canopy resistance (s/m)
CofExtRad_crop1
CofIntCrp_crop1
FraCovCrpInp
Extinction coefficient for
global radiation (-)
Interception coefficient (cm)
Fraction of surface covered
by crop (-)
No
Fixed
Example:
12-Jun-2001 10-Oct-2001 SUNFLOWER1
22-May-2002 30-Sep-2002 SUNFLOWER2
For all three crops:
0
0
0.4 4
1
4
1 0
0
0.7 0.3 3
0.7 0.3 3
For all crops:
0
1
1
1
Default values from SWAP
-15; same value for other crop
-30; same value for other crop
-325; same value for other crop
-600; same value for other crop
-8000; same value for other crop
70; same value for other crop
Source: Allen et al. (1989)
0.39; same value for other 2 crops
Source: Feddes et al. (19878); Ritchie (1972)
0.0001; same value for other crop
This value implies zero interception in practice.
Only required if OptSys is set to ‘PlantOnly’. Otherwise
read from SWAP output
25
HgtCrpInp
(m)
Only required if OptSys is set to ‘PlantOnly’. Otherwise
read from SWAP output.
File Y.MET
PARAMETER
Station
DESCRIPTION
Name of weather station
DD
MM
YYYY
RAD
Tmin
Tmax
HUM
WIND
RAIN
ETref
Number of day
Number of month
Number of year
Daily global radiation (kJ/m2)
Minimum air temperature (oC)
Maximum air temperature (oC)
Air humidity (kPa)
Daily average wind speed (m/s)
Daily rainfall (mm)
Daily reference evapotranspiration (mm)
VALUE, SOURCE & COMMENTS
HAMBURG
Literature references
Boesten JJTI (1986). Behaviour of herbicides in soil: simulation and experimental assessment. Doctoral
thesis. Institute for Pesticide Research, Wageningen, 263 pp.
Feddes, R.A., Kowalik, P.J. and H. Zaradny, 1978. Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Pudoc,
Wageningen, the Netherlands, 188 pp.
FOCUS (2000) FOCUS groundwater scenarios in the EU review of active substances. Report of the
FOCUS Groundwater Scenarios Workgroup, EC document Sanco/321/2000 rev. 2, 197 pp. Available
at http://viso.ei.jrc.it/focus/gw/.
Ritchie, JT (1972). A model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover, Water
Resour. Res. 8: 1204-1213.
Tiktak, A, F van den Berg, JJTI Boesten, D van Kraalingen, M Leistra and AMA. van der Linden
(2000). Manual of FOCUS Pearl version 1.1.1. RIVM Report 711401008, Alterra Report 28, RIVM,
Bilthoven, 142 pp.
Tomlin C (1997) The Pesticide Manual. British Crop Protection Council, 11th ed., Farnham, UK, 1606
pp.
Van Dam JC, Huygen J, Wesseling JG, Feddes RA, Kabat P, Van Walsum PEV, Groenendijk P & Van
Diepen CA (1997). Theory of SWAP version 2.0. Technical Document 45. DLO Winand Staring
Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 167 pp.
Weast, RC (1974). Handbook of chemistry and physics. 55th edition. CRC Press, Cleveland, USA.
26
Appendix 2: Example PEARL input file using option OptSys is
‘PlantOnly’
*-------------------------------------------------------------------* INPUT FILE for Pearl version 1.5.8.1.1-A1
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*-------------------------------------------------------------------* Section 1: Control section
*-------------------------------------------------------------------Consensus
CallingProgram
3
ModelVersion
01-May-2001
TimStart
03-May-2001
TimEnd
0
AmaSysEnd (kg.ha-1)
No
RepeatHydrology
Automatic
OptHyd
PlantOnly
OptSys
Hour
OptDelTimPrn
Yes
OptScreen
No
OptDelOutput
Yes
PrintCumulatives
*-------------------------------------------------------------------* Section 2: Soil section
*-------------------------------------------------------------------HAMB-S_Soil SoilTypeID
Hamburg Location
*-------------------------------------------------------------------* Section 3: Weather and irrigation section
*------------------------------------------------------------------HAMB-M
Hourly
Laminar
PenmanMonteith
52
50
100
0.01
10
10.0
2.0
Hicks
No
No
1.0
1.0
1.0
MeteoStation
OptMetInp
OptTraRes
OptEvp
Lat
Alt
(m)
LenFld
(m)
LenRghMmtLcl (m)
TemLboSta
(C)
ZMeaWnd (m)
ZMeaTem (m)
OptResBou
OptIrr
IrrigationScheme
FacPrc (-)
FacTem (-)
FacEvp (-)
*-------------------------------------------------------------------* Section 4a: Lower boundary flux
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*-------------------------------------------------------------------* Section 4b: Drainage/infiltration section
*-------------------------------------------------------------------No OptDra
*-------------------------------------------------------------------* Section 5: Compound section
*-------------------------------------------------------------------SUB1 SubstanceName
27
table compounds
SUB1
end_table
303.5
MolMas_SUB1 (g.mol-1)
table FraPrtDau (mol.mol-1)
end_table
OptimumConditions OptCntLiqTraRef_SUB1
table horizon FacZTra (-)
hor SUB1
1
1
2
1
3
0.5
4
0.5
5
0.5
6
0.3
7
0.3
8
0
end_table
table horizon FacZSor (-)
hor SUB1
1
0.5
2
0.5
3
0.5
4
0.5
5
0.5
6
0.5
7
0.5
8
0.5
end_table
67
DT50Ref_SUB1 (d)
20
TemRefTra_SUB1 (C)
0.7
ExpLiqTra_SUB1 (-)
1
CntLiqTraRef_SUB1 (kg.kg-1)
54
MolEntTra_SUB1 (kJ.mol-1)
pH-independent
OptCofFre_SUB1
2075
KomEql_SUB1 (L.kg-1)
207500
KomEqlMax_SUB1 (L.kg-1)
1
ConLiqRef_SUB1 (mg.L-1)
0.9
ExpFre_SUB1 (-)
0.0042
PreVapRef_SUB1 (Pa)
20
TemRefVap_SUB1 (C)
4.3
SlbWatRef_SUB1 (mg.L-1)
20
TemRefSlb_SUB1 (C)
27
MolEntSlb_SUB1 (kJ.mol-1)
95
MolEntVap_SUB1 (kJ.mol-1)
0
CofDesRat_SUB1 (d-1)
0
FacSorNeqEql_SUB1 (-)
0.0
MolEntSor_SUB1 (kJ.mol-1)
20.0
TemRefSor_SUB1 (C)
0.5
FacUpt_SUB1 (-)
0.0006
ThiAirBouLay (m)
Calculated
OptDspCrp
1000000
DT50DspCrp (d)
0.330
DT50PenCrp (d)
1000000
DT50VolCrp (d)
0.433
DT50TraCrp (d)
500.0
RadGloRef (W.m-2)
0.0
FacWasCrp (m-1)
0.2
FacTraDepRex (-)
0.2
FacVolDepRex (-)
0.2
FacPenDepRex (-)
0.2
FacWasDepRex (-)
0.1
FraDepRex (-)
20
TemRefDif_SUB1 (C)
4.3E-5
CofDifWatRef_SUB1 (m2.d-1)
0.36
CofDifAirRef_SUB1 (m2.d-1)
*--------------------------------------------------------------------
28
* Section 6: Management section
*-------------------------------------------------------------------Ap-SUB1 ApplicationScheme
1
ZFoc (m)
table Applications
01-May-2001-0000
AppCrpLAI 0.691
end_table
NoRepeat
DelTimEvt (a)
table VerticalProfiles
end_table
table TillageDates
end_table
No DepositionScheme
table
FlmDep
(kg.ha-1.d-1)
end_table
*-------------------------------------------------------------------* Section 7: Crop section
*-------------------------------------------------------------------HAMB-SUGARBEET CropCalendar
Yes
RepeatCrops
Fixed
OptLenCrp
table Crops
15-Apr-2001
08-Oct-2001
SUGARBEET1
end_table
table CrpPar_SUGARBEET1
0
0
1
0
0
0.78
4.2
0.87
1.2
0
1
4.2
0.87
1.2
0
end_table
0.765
FraCovCrpInp (-)
0.3
HgtCrpInp (m)
*-------------------------------------------------------------------* Section 8: Output control
*-------------------------------------------------------------------None
OutputDepths
No
OptDelOutFiles
Air
OptReport
DaysFromSta
DateFormat
G12.4
RealFormat
table OutputDepths (m)
end_table
Yes
print_AmaAppCrp
Yes
print_AmaAppSol
Yes
print_AmaCrp
Yes
print_AmaCrpFex
Yes
print_AmaCrpRex
No
print_AmaHarCrp
Yes
print_AmaWasCrpFex
Yes
print_AmaWasCrpRex
Yes
print_AmaWasCrp
Yes
print_AmaPenCrpFex
Yes
print_AmaPenCrpRex
Yes
print_AmaTraCrpFex
Yes
print_AmaTraCrp
Yes
print_AmaPenCrp
Yes
print_AmaTraCrpRex
Yes
print_AmaVolCrpFex
Yes
print_AmaVolCrpRex
Yes
print_AmaVolCrp
Yes
print_AmrDspCrp
Yes
print_AmrWasCrp
Yes
print_AmrVolCrp
No
print_AmaHarCrp
No
print_DelTimPrl
Yes
print_FacCrpEvp
Yes
print_FlmDepCrp
Yes
print_FraCovCrp
29
Yes
print_TemAir
Yes
print_RstAer
Yes
print_RstBou
Yes
print_VelWnd
Yes
print_RstAirLam
Yes
print_VelFriLcl
No
print_LAI
No
print_ZRoot
No
print_GrwLev
Yes
print_Tem
No
print_PreHea
Yes
print_FlmGas
Yes
print_FlmGasVol
Yes
print_FlmLiq
Yes
print_FlmLiqInf
Yes
print_FlmLiqLbo
Yes
print_FlvLiqEvpIntIrr
Yes
print_FlvLiqEvpIntPrc
Yes
print_FlvLiqEvpSol
Yes
print_FlvLiqEvpSolPot
Yes
print_FlvLiqPrc
Yes
print_FlvLiqTrp
Yes
print_FlvLiqTrpPot
No
print_FlvLiqGrw
No
print_StoCap
No
print_AvoLiqErr
No
print_DelTimPrl
*--------------------------------------------------------------------
30